How the Medical Culture Contributes to Coworker-Perpetrated Harassment and Abuse of Family Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Harassment and abuse in the workplace of family physicians has been associated with higher levels of stress, increased consumption of alcohol, and higher risk for developing mental health problems. Few studies have examined issues contributing to abusive encounters in the workplace of family physicians. METHODS: For the overall study we used a mixed methods design, which included a cross-sectional survey of a randomly selected sample of active family physicians from the database of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and telephone interviews with those who reported experiencing work related harassment and abuse in the last year. The data presented here arise from the qualitative interviews of the study, which were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The interview arm of the study included 23 female and 14 male participants. The major themes that emerged from the study were (1) modeling of abusive behaviors, (2) status hierarchy among various medical disciplines, (3) shortage of physicians, and (4) lack of transparent policies and follow-up procedures after abusive encounters. The results are discussed using the broken window theory. CONCLUSION: Many family physicians experience harassing and abusive encounters during their training or in the workplace. The current medical culture appears to contribute to harassment and abuse in the workplace of family physicians in Canada. We described the components that intentionally or unintentionally facilitate abusive behavior in the medical culture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".